Plate Tectonics: A Modern Myth?

Recommended Posts

Hello, my name is Doug Fisher, author of the recently released Advertising removed by moderator

The first half of Maps, Myths & Paradigms analyzes ancient maps and along the way delves into Plato's detailed geographical description of Atlantis. While I had discovered a location that matched the scale and layout of Plato’s Atlantis, the observation by no means validated the site as the true location nor confirmed that the fabled civilization actually ever existed. Still, Plato’s description of two continents beyond the Mediterranean—Atlantis and a second large continent opposite a path of islands—is a remarkably accurate description of the Americas and the Caribbean islands that link the two continents. It left enough of an impression that I decided to pursue the Atlantis tale to the next level. I set out to identify the scope and source of the cataclysm that potentially befell Atlantis. Plato’s account appeared to describe a global event with earthquakes occurring inside and well outside the Mediterranean.

Research for the second half began with an analysis of terrestrial surface patterns as they relate to plate tectonics. From the start, everything appeared to confirm everything I knew and believed true of plate tectonics and then…Kamchatka happened.

I. Kamchatka: Fracture vs. SubductionCurrent Theory: Geologists maintain that Kamchatka originated as a series of volcanic islands that erupted up from the seafloor due to friction generated as the Pacific seafloor plate subducted beneath the Okhotsk Plate. They believe that these islands coalesced into one large island and in turn, this large island expanded further to the north until it merged with the Asian mainland forming the peninsula that exists today (see image below).

New Theory: I propose that Kamchatka was the product of fracturing and separation similar to the separation of the Americas from Africa. In support of this new theory, the image below demonstrates Kamchatka’s perfect conformance to a cavity lying along the adjacent Asian coast. Not only does the coastal cavity exhibit a conforming point at the end (left arrow) and hump across its top, there are also two isolated coastal points on each landmass that line up perfectly when the two are brought back together (center arrow). These two coastal points were once joined together as an isthmus. Further evidence that this alignment of coastal points is not mere coincidence exists in a similar set of coastal points that still remain aligned to this day (right arrow). The evidence suggests that Kamchatka fractured free of the Asian mainland along brittle fractures but a small initial area of resistance exhibited ductile extension in the form of an isthmus before fracturing cleanly from the continent. The peninsula then swung counterclockwise out from its perch with one last ductile isthmus forming, fracturing, and undergoing 18 miles of separation, which it retains to this day.

II. Ductile Fractures
We currently acknowledge brittle fractures occurring in continental mass as witnessed in the near-perfect conformance of the Americas to Africa, but plate tectonics appears to have overlooked another fundamental feature of fracture mechanics: Ductile fracturing. Ductile fracturing can occur along the edge of a plate that exhibits ductile or pliable properties. When the plate is stretched beyond its limits these ductile regions give way forming arced voids. In the image below, two arrows mark where the Asian coast has incurred ductile fracturing. These two ductile openings account for much of the disparity in length between Kamchatka’s western coast and the Asian coast (see inset above to see the span omitted from the main image to attain the appropriate fit).

Soon after discovering these two ductile fractures, it became clear that ductile fractures were strewn all about the Kamchatka region indicating the region had been subjected to tremendous stress in the past.

III. Fractures Have Ridges
It also became clear that there was a direct relationship between many of these continental ductile fractures and seafloor ridges which currently are attributed to hotspots. I propose that continental crust and seafloor crust have a relationship that is much like that of a wooden frame to canvas. Just as an open-mode fracture in a wooden frame rips a void outward into the adjoining canvas (see image below), so a continental open-mode fracture rips a void out into the adjoining seafloor. While the tear in the canvas leaves a void, the void created in the seafloor crust is filled by magma lying beneath. The ridges form the boundaries between old seafloor and new and vary in size based on the instability between the two during plate movement.

I also propose that island arcs, currently believed to be formed by subduction and friction, are actually the product of in-plane shear fractures where some continental crust has fractured free and pulled away from the seafloor crust while portions of continental crust remain attached.

Once again, this basic phenomenon can be replicated on a wooden frame and canvas. Notice in the image below that in both instances portions of the frame and continental crust have fractured and moved away from the canvas and seafloor crust. The separation has resulted in a downward V-shaped void versus the outward V-shaped void incurred by the open-mode fracture demonstrated above. Similar to the open-mode fracture, the seafloor void has been filled by magma lying beneath. Note in both instances that the V-shaped void lies immediately below the two fractured surfaces that perfectly conform to each other.

Rather than the plate boundary existing at the bottom of the adjacent trench as currently maintained, the island arc is the actual boundary ridge separating the new seafloor from the old. In the example below, the older Pacific Plate is bonded to the newer Okhotsk Plate at the Kuril Island Arc. While the trench lying alongside the island arc is currently believed to be proof that the Pacific Plate is subducting beneath the Okhotsk Plate, it is actually a fold within the Pacific Plate. Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea are splinter fractures that have remained attached to the Pacific seafloor crust while Asia has traveled westward.

IV. Cameroon: Fracture vs. Hotspot
Although many examples are offered up in Myths, Maps & Paradigms, one notable example of a perceived hotspot ridge is the one that defines the Cameroon line. The Cameroon line has long been regarded as a product of the African Plate moving across the Cameroon hotspot. I believe what has been overlooked is the arced bay which surrounds it, the Bight of Biafra. This once again appears to be a ductile fracture and in this instance, the fracture continues inland as a brittle fracture. Instability within the brittle fracture during plate movement has allowed magma to seep through forming the inland ridge. Meanwhile, the adjacent seafloor, which is directly attached to the coast, has been subjected to the same partial separation as a result of instability in the continental fracture thus also allowing magma to seep through creating a chain of volcanic islands.

Further confirmation of fracturing can be seen below in the enlarged image. The brittle fracture known as the Cameroon line (C) runs directly down the center of the arced ductile fracture while secondary fractures (A, B, D, and E) lie to either side. These secondary fractures can take the form of smaller bays or inlets and often extend further inland as riverways.

As demonstrated below, symmetrical secondary fracturing is a common natural trait shared by many ductile fractures. The Karaginsky ductile fracture exhibits similar symmetrical secondary fracturing as seen in the Bight Biafra. Also of note in the examples below, it is common for rivers to flow along brittle fractures.

V. Subduction Fallacy
As noted in Section III, I believe that the oceanic trenches lining the western Pacific are seafloor crustal folds. Seismic activity occurring in Benioff zones extending from the trench to well beneath the overriding plate is due to shifting within the fold and extends to fractures resulting from the tight fold.

By no means is the Pacific Plate completely independent of the Asian continent and subducting beneath it. How can we be certain?
1. The separation of splinter fragments—Kamchatka, Japan, and Korea—from the Asian mainland requires that the fragments be attached directly and firmly to the Pacific seafloor providing the necessary resistance to anchor the splintered fragments while the mainland traveled westward, and
2. Take special note of the ridges in the image of the Kamchatka region below. Note that one of those ridges is the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain (C) and it still remains aligned to the cusp of a ductile fracture. Moving the Pacific Plate significantly forward or backward in time would find the ridge further north or south of the cusp. Likewise with the Aleutian Plate alignments. Only minor convergence between plates would allow for the multiple retained alignments, thus seafloor folding is the most logical explanation for the formation of seafloor trenches as it allows for the least amount of seafloor displacement.

Ascribing alignments between ridges and ductile fracture cusps and centers, in the Kamchatka region and throughout the globe, to the random movement of crustal plates over hotspot ridges defies all odds and logic.

In conclusion, I believe fracture mechanics—a very basic observable dynamic that formed the basis of continental drift and plate tectonics with the realization that the Americas conformed to Africa—was abandoned far too early in the process of analyzing Earth dynamics. Maps, Myths & Paradigms provides a fresh new view of terrestrial surface patterns with an eye toward fracture mechanics and sets forth consistent unifying theories for seafloor ridge and peninsular formations as well as coastal fractures and their immediate observable effect on the adjacently attached seafloor crust.

Based on planetary surface analysis, by means of topographic and bathymetric maps, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of fracturing continental plates and separation with little to no long-term plate convergence. This, along with the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain’s retained alignment with a continental fracture cusp, strongly suggests that plate subduction is not occurring and, by logical extension, plate tectonics is a failed theory.

This would appear to leave us with only one remaining option for an Earth dynamic: Earth expansion.

To map which projection isn't stated so we don't know if it is a shape preserving one or not, but it reminds me of a French Curve, as used by draftsmen.
And any user will know that these are designed so you can wiggle one part of the device to 'fit' almost anything.

So it is not suprising that a gently curving convex shape will 'fit' another gently curving concave one.

Secondly the OP then states that the Asian cost has to be stretched to fit!

Wow.

2 hours ago, Doug Fisher said:

These two ductile openings account for much of the disparity in length between Kamchatka’s western coast and the Asian coast (see inset above to see the span omitted from the main image to attain the appropriate fit).

There is plenty of evidence for subduction to be found, but it is not the whole story and indeed modern geologists are delving into

This is not to say that plate techtonics is not without it mysteries, eg the well studied and documented New Madrid earthquakes in the centre of plates.

The theory is far from fully developed and will undoubtedly undergo significant further revision as better evidence emerges.

Here is a quote from a more recent book that I have reviewed elsewhere at SF.

The New Scientist "This is Planet Earth"

Quote

Enthusiasts for a deeper explanation of the Earth's surface activity think it is only a matter of time and better seismic imaging before these objections are also countered.
If those enthusiasts are correct then more than plate techtonics is at work shaping our planet's past, present and future. In that case geology is on the cusp of another revolution which could be as significant as plate techtonics.

But these words were written by senior geologists and geophysicists in their fields and also in proper collaborative and peer reviewed scientific papers, eg the Nicky White 2011 Scottish Study by the University of Cambridge.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Interesting link and truly confusing post over there. Personally, I’m slightly more of a Bob Jase fan. (You'd have to visit the link and do a little search to appreciate that one.)

11 hours ago, studiot said:

﻿Secondly the OP then states that the Asian cost has to be stretched to fit!

Wow

1

Wow is right. Just the opposite was stated. I was suggesting that if we removed the stretching, which exists in the form of ductile fractures, the coasts would then be a good fit. Don’t fret, the guy at that link performed far, far worse. This was just a slight misunderstanding.

Quote

Look at the drawn shape of Kamchatka.

To map which projection isn't stated so we don't know if it is a shape preserving one or not, but it reminds me of a French Curve, as used by draftsmen.
And any user will know that these are designed so you can wiggle one part of the device to 'fit' almost anything.

So it is not suprising that a gently curving convex shape will 'fit' another gently curving concave one.

2

Also, there was no need for the curvy-wiggly modification you speak of. The image was created using same-scale overlays on ESRI’s ArcGIS Earth. You can do the same on Google Earth. I encourage you to give it a go and would love to see your results.

No thoughts on the two isolated coastal points coming into perfect alignment along the top of Kamchatka, Studiot? I give you my word that I did not move them up and down the coast…much.

All the best and thanks for the reply.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hello Doug, welcome to SFN. The biggest problem I see here is you do not cite any scientific research to support your conjecture. These independent observations of the natural world are not just needed, but they are actually required to raise your idea up to a more credible level of predictive strength. Right now all you have is your words describing the physical arrangement of the Earth’s crust as seen in the images that you yourself have supplied.

So, now all I need to do at this time to falsify your idea is to cite one or more credible sources that will refute your very weak speculation. For example, your analysis appears to focus entirely on some manner of extensional forces that have in some manner moved the described crustal sections away from each other.You then conclude: “This would appear to leave us with only one remaining option for an Earth dynamic: Earth expansion.”

This would undoubtedly require the crust to be predominantly in a state of tension to separate the crust in the manner that you have described above.

I now simply need to counter your claim with contrary evidence from scientifically reputable sources that the crust is instead at this moment in a state of compression.

"As most of the oceanic lithosphere is in a state of net compression, the question arises as to why intraplate deformation has developed in these regions and not in others."

On top of this contradictory evidence above is the fact that this scientifically observed and measured compression is just part of a much broader set of observations of additional and even greater compressive forces that have been measured and described.

Gravitational potential energy of the Tibetan Plateau and the forces driving the Indian plateAttreyee Ghosh, William E. HoltDepartment of Geosciences, State University of New York, Stony Brook, New York 11790, USALucy M. Flesch*Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington, DC 20015, USAA. John Haines†Bullard Laboratories, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0EZ, UKABSTRACT "We present a study of the vertically integrated deviatoric stress field for the Indian plate and the Tibetan Plateau associated with gravitational potential energy (GPE) differences. Although the driving forces for the Indian plate have been attributed solely to the mid-oceanic ridges that surround the entire southern boundary of the plate, previous estimates of vertically integrated stress magnitudes of 6–7 1012 N/m in Tibet far exceed those of 3 1012 N/m associated with GPE at mid-oceanic ridges, calling for an additional force to satisfy the stress magnitudes in Tibet. We use the Crust 2.0 data set to infer gravitational potential energy differences in the lithosphere. We then apply the thin sheet approach in order to obtain a global solution of vertically integrated deviatoric stresses associated only with GPE differences.

The multitudes of mountain ranges around the world are without a doubt one of the most dramatic expressions of compressive forces observed on the planet’s surface. Both in the sense that the structures are compressing through gravity the surrounding crustal plates, but also, they themselves are in turn pushing back, otherwise the mountains would be spreading out over the surrounding area and outwardly displacing these same crustal plates.

ANNALS OF GEOPHYSICS, SUPPLEMENT TO VOL. 49, N. 1, 2006Mountain uplift and the Neotectonic PeriodCLIFF D. OLLIERSchool of Earth and Geographical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia 9.2. EXAMPLES 9.2.1. Tibet, Himalayas, Kunlun Mountains(As an example, consider the timing of uplift in Tibet and its bordering mountains. Gansser (1991) wrote: «... we must realize that the morphogenic phase is not only restricted to the Himalayas but involves the whole Tibetan block.This surprising fact shows that an area of 2500000 km2 has been uplifted 3000-4000 m during Pleistocene time and that this uplift is still going on.» In places the uplift rate is 4.5 mm/yr (five times the maximum in the European Alps).

In short the Expanding Earth hypothesis has no answer to these massive structures. With just a few scientifically valid research papers a hypothesis without any similar support can be trivially shown that its supposition is false.

Here is a link to a ResearchGate discussion on Plate Tectonics started by a purveyor of the Expanding Earth hypothesis; https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_dont_we_immediately_stop_teaching_nonsense_aggregate_of_pseudoscientific_speculations_of_plate_tectonics

You will see how poorly the idea can be explained and defended. One particular fact presented by a geologist was very robust and of course ignored;

"The Earth is not expanding. We have a global network of geodetic stations which have determined the relative motions of thousands of points on the planet's surface for the last several decades and the net motions add up to zero for any global circuit. All the observed domains (the plates) which are semi-rigidly separating are matched by other domains which are converging. The geodetic data strongly support plate tectonics and refute the expanding earth concept. The expanding earth hypothesis is a simplistic notion that has been examined repeatedly for well over a century and repeatedly found wanting. This is an example of why peer reviewed science is so critical, as all it takes is one newbie with a seafloor map and a pair of scissors to decide they have rediscovered an old "truth" and in the world of uncontrolled access on the internet they can force a lot of practitioners to waste a lot of time reviewing and repeating old work to knock down these spontaneous visions of grandeur. I know of what I speak because I have had to whack this mole repeatedly over my entire career as a global tectonicist."

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Replies seem to be focused on refuting that statement, which I get, and there seems to be some difficulty or inability in addressing the main thrust of the topic and specifically the five very clear oversights by geologists:

The Kamchatka coastal fit,

The existence of ductile fractures,

The consistent global relationship between fractures and ridges,

The Cameroon ductile fracture, and

The perfectly retained alignment of ridges with ductile fracture cusps across trenches.

These are globally consistent patterns that are readily identified and explained by fracture mechanics.

I have no difficulty in citing papers that tell us that Kamchatka was formed by friction from the Pacific Plate subducting beneath the Okhotsk Plate, but unfortunately I cannot cite one paper that explains how Kamchatka mysteriously rose up from the seabed and coalesced into a shape that perfectly conforms to the adjacent Asian coast and for good measure added one lone isolated coastal point along the western coast that just happens to align with a lone coastal point within the coastal pocket.

Just to put it in perspective, you will not find another landform on the planet that conforms to this portion of the Asian coast and yet, amazingly, just a few hundred miles away and millions of years after the Asian coast was formed lava begins rising up from the seafloor to create the one lone landform on the planet that conforms. It is Kamchatka, and you can readily see that it can pivot cleanly right back into the Asian coastline conforming far better than the Americas conform to Africa.

Anyway, I truly appreciate your reply, but honestly, if someone could cite a reasonable explanation for ridges being perfectly aligned with ductile fracture cusps across trenches, I'd drop the whole matter immediately. The simple fact is, these alignments could not have retained their alignments if substantial subduction has taken place.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Based on planetary surface analysis, by means of topographic and bathymetric ﻿maps, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favor of fracturing continental plates and separation with little to no long-term plate convergence. This, along with the Emperor-Hawaiian seamount chain’s retained alignment with a continental fracture cusp, strongly suggests that plate subduction﻿ is not occurring and, by logical extension, plate tectonics is a failed theory. ﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿

Title of your thread and this comment suggests that you are rejecting entire theory of plate tectonics (and geology and paleontology as well, which you didn't realize). Which is IMHO extraordinary claim.

If the same pattern exist in one area (let's say it's a-b-c-d) and in slightly other area (or even at the moment disconnected land) is b-c-d, geologists have proof that one plate subducted other plate.

Sometimes there can be reversed pattern e.g. d-c-b it's proof that plate folding happened in the past. Older layers are on the top, while newer layers are on the bottom.

Paleontologists are finding remains of the same animal or plant living on (currently) two or more different continents or plates, multi-millions years ago.

Their remains are in one older layer, but are missing in newer layer. Their successors were evolving independently. There was no free transfer of genes, between two different continents, separated thousand kilometers wide ocean.

Conclusion? Separation of land must happened in the past.

This can be reversed (and happened hundred times in the entire Earth history). Animal/plant is living on plate A, and there is no remains of them on plate B (in the same age layer). Later there is created connection between plates, so animals and plants are able to settle on new lands, and their remains are appearing in newer layer the first time. Then there is disconnection again, and successors are evolving independently. And so on, so on, during hundred millions of years of evolution on the Earth.

Paleontologists are finding remains of sea water creatures from prehistoric times, on the top of the highest mountains, at the moment reaching couple kilometers. Conclusion? These mountains used to be below sea level hundreds millions years ago.

Paleontology and geology are confirming theory of plate tectonics, and are essential source of data about plate movements, collisions, and interactions.

From such data we can make videos like this one:

Edited January 12 by Sensei

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Just to be clear, I have never stated that the Earth is currently expanding (details below). Nor did I intend to write off compression and folding. In fact, I mention both above in my initial post. I am merely stating that there is little to no subduction occurring along the Pacific trench. If there were, the alignments across the trench could not have been retained, thus folding versus thousands of miles of Pacific seafloor having subducted into the trench.

Still I realize that, as you suggest Sensei, there is quite a bit of geology which I am rejecting.

Here is the problem, if we accept plate tectonics, then we essentially accept that hotspots/mantle plumes have a certain level of intelligence. These powerful invisible forces sit deep inside the mantle and are yet somehow cognizant of surface structures and successfully find their way to fracture points when a non-intelligent hotspot or mantle plume should randomly transverse a continental coast at any point. It is a bit uncanny and we should all be afraid. Queue X-Files music.

However, if we reconcile these ridges with fracture mechanics, then the consistent alignments between continental fractures and seafloor ridges is a natural phenomenon common across the globe that can easily be replicated inside a lab, or even in your own home with a canvas-covered frame.

Take a look at the image below from Sensei’s embedded video. It is captured at the 5:50 mark and depicts the Atlantic and Indian Oceans as they would appear around 40 million years in the past.

The large circles with arrows capture all the hotspot ridges (some are regarded as plateaus) where they intersect continental crust (on the far right the green circle would sit on Indochina on a modern map). You can clearly see hotspots that extend off each end of Madagascar. If you go back in time to about 60mya (5:30 mark) you can see that the ridges begin to form as soon as Madagascar fractured free of India. Plate tectonics would have us believe that hotspots deep beneath the earth discovered each end of Madagascar and suddenly burned through the seafloor crust and moved off from there. Fracture mechanics would suggest Madagascar was affixed to Africa when India (attached to Indochina) broke free at the southern point of Madagascar initiating the GREEN expansion V-wedge. Then later broke free of India to the north initiating the RED V-wedge. Then fractured free of Africa.

The same is true between South America and Africa. Two yellow circles on South America mark the span of a ductile fracture along the coast of South America with a V-shaped plateau extending out from it. Across the Atlantic, the third yellow circle marks where South America broke free of Africa in the north (4:35 mark in video). Hotspots once again seeking out fractures or simply a fracture with boundary ridges extending from it?

Now note in the image above that the ridges form downward Vs that are attached at the bottom (triangles) around 40mya. Plate tectonics asks us to believe that hotspots not only could determine fracture points, they were also aware and apparently partial to central ridges and rode them from the moment the continents fractured apart until 40mya. Hence the mirrored ridges extending back to land on either side of central expansion ridges. Again, this would be explained quite easily by continental fractures extending outward into the seafloor.

And this is where it gets even more interesting. About 40mya all of these ridges in the Atlantic and the Indian Ocean ceased expanding (see image below. Colored lines mark the point where seafloor ridge formation ceased ~40mya. There is little to no extension of ridges into the newer seafloor crust. Why did these subterranean forces decide to suddenly jump the ridge? And what could explain the simultaneous jumping from central ridges in three places across two oceans?

I theorize that these ridges are exactly what they appear, boundary ridges extending off of fracture points. They formed because they came about during the first expansion event which saw the separation of all the continents…except for one.

The separation of Antarctica from Australia is the last lone continental fracture and some believe that the Wilkes Land crater is responsible for the breakup. I believe the Wilkes Land crater initiated a second expansion event. You can see in the video that shortly after the two continents fracture apart, the V-wedges begin separating as well.

By the time the Wilkes Land impact occurred, little to no plate movement had been occurring, similar to today. This allowed the magma seeping up through the boundaries to solidify and bond. When the Wilkes Land impact and subsequent expansion occurred, the bonded ridges held while the expansion ridges gave way and generated new seafloor crust.

Another fascinating observation. In the image below of the canvas frame, we can clearly see that the top of the V-wedge marks two points that were once shared. Moving Sensei’s video back in time finds the points where the hotspots intersect continental mass are also once-shared points that are rejoined when the continental masses are brought back together. Why would hotspot ridges mimic this same pattern?

In conclusion, the ridge and fracture alignments occurring throughout the world—and oh yes, there are many more examples beyond those revealed in the Kamchatka region and the Pacific and Indian Oceans—cannot be explained by the current plate tectonics model. While I know hotspots are not considered intelligent, I am certain no one knows why hotspots would seek out these alignments. I am of the belief that no one has noticed these alignments previously or at least taken the time to reconcile them to the plate tectonics model.

Further, it would appear that no one here is doubting or denying the following:

That I have discovered continental ductile fractures, and

That ductile and brittle fractures are often directly associated with seafloor ridges.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Wow is right. Just the opposite was stated. I was suggesting that if we removed the stretching, which exists in the form of ductile fractures, the coasts would then be a good fit. Don’t fret, the guy at that link performed far, far worse. This was just a slight misunderstanding.

I am sorry, I understood your original words to mean that you were using actually measure distances on your diagrams, not some values you have adjusted by means not disclosed.

As regards the language I would prefer the words convexity and concavity to be used in preference to simply cavity. Cavity on its own has 3 dimensionsal implications and could easily be misunderstood.

On 1/11/2019 at 3:07 PM, Doug Fisher said:

New Theory: I propose that Kamchatka was the product of fracturing and separation similar to the separation of the Americas from Africa. In support of this new theory, the image below demonstrates Kamchatka’s perfect conformance to a cavity lying along the adjacent Asian coast. Not only does the coastal cavity exhibit a conforming point at the end (left arrow) and hump across its top, there are also two isolated coastal points on each landmass that line up perfectly when the two are brought back together (center arrow). These two coastal points were once joined together as an isthmus. Further evidence that this alignment of coastal points is not mere coincidence exists in a similar set of coastal points that still remain aligned to this day (right arrow). The evidence suggests that Kamchatka fractured free of the Asian mainland along brittle fractures but a small initial area of resistance exhibited ductile extension in the form of an isthmus before fracturing cleanly from the continent. The peninsula then swung counterclockwise out from its perch with one last ductile isthmus forming, fracturing, and undergoing 18 miles of separation, which it retains to this day.

On 1/12/2019 at 5:19 AM, Doug Fisher said:

Also, there was no need for the curvy-wiggly modification you speak of. The image was created using same-scale overlays on ESRI’s ArcGIS Earth. You can do the same on Google Earth. I encourage you to give it a go and would love to see your results.

No thoughts on the two isolated coastal points coming into perfect alignment along the top of Kamchatka, Studiot? I give you my word that I did not move them up and down the coast…much.

All the best and thanks for the reply.

I didn't say there was a need.
I said offered an alternative method of achieving the same results.
Any proper scientific analysis must be able to discount these scientifically, not with a contemptuous wave of the hand.

Again your words appear to hide any adjustments you may have made to the diagrams.

One thing in particular strikes me.

I asked you about conformal (shape preserving) projections of your maps .

You did not answer this., however you quote ESRI so here are their published thought on the subject of confomal projections.

Quote

ESRI

Conformal projections

Conformal projections preserve local shape. To preserve individual angles describing the spatial relationships, a Conformal projection must show the perpendicular graticule lines intersecting at 90-degree angles on the map. A map projection accomplishes this by maintaining all angles. The drawback is that the area enclosed by a series of arcs may be greatly distorted in the process. No map projection can preserve shapes of larger regions.

I suggest you are presenting too much material at once and skimming over far too quickly, jumping about the globe and from subject to subject.
Each of these deserves proper detailed consideration in its own right.

I note also that you are only looking at surface features and also not including regional geological history.

Both of these need to be included, but geological data for Kamchatka is sparse to say the least.

Here is some showing the relationship to the surrounding geology and earth movement history.

So if you want to have a discussion about Kamchatka, let's have a proper rational one, or I can stop wasting my time.

1

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Here is the problem,if we accept plate tectonics, then we essentially accept that hotspots/mantle plumes have a certain level of intelligence. These powerful invisible forces sit deep inside the mantle and are yet somehow cognizant of surface structures and successfully find their way to fracture points when a non-intelligent hotspot or mantle plume should randomly transverse a continental coast at any point. It is a bit uncanny and we should all be afraid. Queue X-Files music.

What is density of water? 1 g/cm^3..

What is depth of Pacific ocean? Search net for "Pacific depth map" in image mode.

What is average density of rock? 2-3 g/cm^3. If it contains significant amount of metal ores, it's more.

Hotspots appear mainly below oceans because that's where is the smallest thickness of ground above them, with the smallest density of matter above them, and there is the smallest pressure.

If you would make balloon, with various thickness of gum on one side than the other side, and start pumping it, you would see that area where is weaker thinner gum is growing the first.. Is air intelligent to find out the weakest place on the balloon? Or is it just physics.. ?

Edited January 13 by Sensei

2

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you would make balloon, with various thickness of gum on one side than the other side, and start pumping it, you would see that area where is weaker thinner gum is growing the first.. Is air intelligent to find out the weakest place on the balloon? Or is it just physics.. ?

+1 Sensei for a first class example.

Di you know that the first recorded example in history was given by Aristotle?

Quote

Aristotle: Physicae Ascultationes

...The rain does not fall in order to make the corn grow any more than it falls to spoil the farmer's corn when threshed out of doors...

As regards intelligence in general and intelligent design in particular I hope Doug is not intended to introduce these red heerings from another ocean.

However he has some potentially worthwhile ideas well worth the effort of looking into.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hotspots appear mainly below oceans because that's where is the smallest thickness of ground above them, with the smallest density of matter above them, and there is the smallest pressure.

Great point, but I believe we are saying the same exact thing here.

I think we can both agree that there is an abundance of thin oceanic crust. And, based on your statement, we can both agree that whenever continental plates separate and expose this thin layer of crust, should they be lurking below, hotspots would potentially begin cutting a path from the edge of the continental crust, where the thinner crust is exposed, outward.

My point: If these hotspots are randomly strewn about the globe, why do they just happen to consistently extend off obvious fracture points and not off from other random coastal areas, e.g., why do they extend off each end of Madagascar and not its center? Why do they occur along the African coast at a point once shared with a ductile fracture? Why did the Cameroon hotspot just happen to go right through the center of an arced ductile fracture?

Of course, I fully agree that hotspots, if they exist, lack intelligence. I am just attempting to make the point that the current plate tectonics model requires us to believe the next-to-impossible that this consistent relationship between ridges and fracture points is just a fortunate series of recurring coincidences while fracture mechanics provides a less complicated, readily observable, consistent explanation in each and every case.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Since you are unable or unwilling to expand point (1) on your list, can we assume you have abandoned this claim about Kamchatka and move on to proposal number (2) ?

So please explain exactly what you mean by ductile fracture ?

Please note this is a serious question, despite your insulting comments towards conventional geoscientists imputing that ductility is not considered.

Here is a short extract from the chapter on ductility in a more technical standard work.

Structural Geology

Hobbs, Means, and Williams

(1976)

Quote

The second term is ductility and is used in two quite different manners. It is define quite independently of the strength of a rock. In the context of this book one rock is more ductile than another if the first can be deformed to higher strains then the second before fracture ensues. .............................. Some writers use the word ductility ( and the associated phrase ductility contrast) to refer to the strength or relative strength of rocks.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

My intention was not to insult geoscientists, it is what I perceive to be fact and I've seen no proof to the contrary.

It is absolutely true that ductility is a term that geoscientists are very much aware of as your quote shows. Folding rock requires a level of ductility or flexibility. If the rock is too rigid, a potential fold can become a brittle fracture. These are common observations at ground level. I was never questioning this level of awareness.

Now consider viewing the planet from above on terrain and bathymetric maps. Observing brittle fractures on maps was key in discovering and developing the theories of continental drift and ultimately plate tectonics. Anyone that has even a basic knowledge of plate tectonics has seen maps demonstrating the conformance of the Americas to Africa.

So what is a brittle fracture? This is a break in a rigid material like a ceramic vase. If you have ever broken someone’s vase, you have probably at one time made an effort to glue it back together and oftentimes you can be very successful (it is helpful putting it back on the shelf with the missing pieces toward the back). The reason the pieces fit together as well as they did is that the fragments experienced little to no deformity, i.e., stretching, due to the rigidity of the material. The coasts of the Americas and Africa exhibit this type of fracture for the most part, which is why we can so easily see and recognize their original fit.

What is a ductile fracture? This is a break in a ductile or pliable material. You’ve witnessed it many times. You see it when you break open a cream-filled chocolate or grab a hot slice of cheese pizza. On a cheese pizza, the material stretches and deforms and signs of structural failure begin to show up in the form of oval voids. Full failure occurs when the wispy material surrounding the voids breaks which leaves arcs with wispy cusps draping off your slice of pizza.

In sheet metal (image below), these cusps are far less pronounced because the material is slightly more rigid than melted cheese. Nevertheless, the telltale signs of a ductile fracture is an arced recess in the edge of a sheet or plate with some level of defined cusping.

So when we have a planet with continental crust that has been subjected to stresses and brittle fracturing, why would we not expect these same stresses to incur ductile fracturing since we know that Earth’s crust exhibits ductile properties and since ductile fracturing is such a fundamental aspect of fracture mechanics? To be fair, the idea of ductile fracturing had not occurred to me until I began analyzing Kamchatka.

By the way, I have not abandoned my Kamchatka claim by any means. I thought the fit was fairly self-evident. The image I provided is perfectly scaled and displays exactly how Kamchatka fits into the adjacent cavity. I’ve provided another map below. Notice how many coastal points exist on each coastline and yet these two points align when Kamchatka is placed into the coastal pocket. And geologists are still struggling to explain how the two rows of mountains could exist on Kamchatka since subduction and island arc formation can only account for one row. Meanwhile, the Kamchatka valley just happens to align with a similar valley when pocketed into the coast, suggesting that the mountains and valley were formed while Kamchatka was still embedded into Asia.

Back to ductile fractures. After recognizing that Kamchatka pivoted out from the Asian coast, I noticed two arced pockets in the Asian coastline and immediately recognized that they were ductile fractures. Picture these as voids in the cheese above that occurred as Kamchatka pivoted outward and upward, stretching the upper coastline line in the process. Like one of the cheese voids in the center of the above pic, the thinner side gave way and opened up the void creating a coastal arc. The outstretched cusping is what remains of the outer wall of the void.

I think most can easily visualize this entire process of Kamchatka pivoting out of the adjacent pocket and the ductile fractures opening up along the way just by studying the image below.

Hope this helps clarify discoveries 1 and 2. And thanks so much for inquiring about them. Even if I am wrong about the earth expanding (you don't even have to say it ), these are still discoveries that may have an impact on and within the bounds of plate tectonics.

Thanks again and all the best.

0

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hope this helps clarify discoveries 1 and 2. And thanks so much for inquiring about them. Even if I am wrong about the earth expanding (you don't even have to say it ), these are still discoveries that may have an impact on and within the bounds of plate tectonics.

Thank you for replying at last.

Your clarification of ductile action is quite a reasonable description.
Traditionally ductile action is identified with 'necking' of specimens or real object subject to stress, and this can be seen particularly well in your picture, which is like the simple uniaxial tensile test.

However you have not gone into the detail of the subject where not only the stress regime needs to be considered but also the loading regime that brings about that stress.

This is important because your rotation proposal for Kamchatka is not simple uniaxial stress.
It would need to be more like a giant screw dislocation.
You would need to consider the Burgers vector.

You don't seem interested in my references
Why is this?
They all point to material that is missing from your presentation.

For instance the book I referred to contains a treatment of the all important conditions for what is known as the brittle-ductile transition for rock materials.
Higher pressures and highter temperatures favour ductility in rocks, although the exact numbers vary from rock to rock.

You have not explored this aspect and it is very important.

As far as I can see you have simply claimed that a lenticular object (Kamchatka) can be fitted or aligned to a concave or embayed coastline, using paln views at some scale and projection.
I am sure that I could fit it to many such bays around the world, from the Hudson Bay, the Great Australian Bight, The Bay of Biscay, the Gulf of Siam, The Culf of Mexico etc etc.

Shape alone is not enough.

You need to show that the rocks match.

And match to depth.

The Sea of Okhotsk has volcanic / intrusive activity around most of its margins.

But what of the underlying rocks?

And did the intrusions match in time?

For instance there are a series of (now) low mountain ranges in East Scotland, between Edinburgh and Dundee, that are of igneous orign but the igneous activity was episodic over several tens of million years and overlies the surrounding Devonian sedimentary regime. Compare the ages of the Pentlands, Ochils, Sidlaws. Subsequently major rocks were laid down around the Firth of Forth in the Carboniferous period.

Such relative dating should be performed and offered on your 'match points' .

That is why I put up the geological data I have on Kamchatka.
Obviously I have access to better data from Scotland.

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Sea of Okhotsk has volcanic / intrusive activity around most of its margins.

But what of the underlying rocks?

And did the intrusions match in time?

2

I will admit that I am by no means a geologist, but I do know that much like your statement regarding hotspots finding their way to thinner crust, fractures occur where the bonds are weakest and that is between dissimilar materials. For example, concrete breaks around the aggregate, not through it. The fact that Kamchatka varies from the Asian coast makes perfect sense from the perspective of fracture mechanics.

Quote

As far as I can see you have simply claimed that a lenticular object (Kamchatka) can be fitted or aligned to a concave or embayed coastline, using paln views at some scale and projection.

I am sure that I could fit it to many such bays around the world, from the Hudson Bay, the Great Australian Bight, The Bay of Biscay, the Gulf of Siam, The Culf of Mexico etc etc

2

You really don’t see any significant conformance between Kamchatka and the adjacent coast and seriously believe it would fit as well in any of those other locations? I challenge you to find a better fit. The results would be interesting.

This whole thing about using ‘paln’ views at some scale and projection argument is a bit ridiculous. See what you did? You forced me to create this horrible animated gif—it may have been rushed—to demonstrate that there is no variation in scaling. The fit is slightly looser than my image above, but that is due to the map overlay I used in ESRI. This is direct from Google Earth with no overlays.

In this animation, the image captured of the coastal pocket remains stationary. A series of images were captured at the identical scale—no zooming in or out—while the peninsula was rotated and moved back into the cavity. These images were then layered in sequence over the backdrop and finally reverse sequenced to show Kamchatka pulling out of the Asian coast. No distortion or change of scale occurred at any point in the making of this gif. Again, anyone can confirm this fit using the same process. If the fit looks all too perfect, blame Google.

The alignment of the coastal points is highlighted with a circle and demonstrates the near-perfect fit and alignment of Kamchatka’s endpoint and arced coastline when these two coastal points are joined back together.

Again, it is practically impossible that a landform bubbled up from the seafloor and chose the same size, shape, orientation with convex toward concave, and the perfect placement of a lone isolated coastal point. Are we sure plate tectonics doesn’t allow for an intelligent planet?

Back to the subject of ductile fractures. Located along the coast of North Africa is a rather large ductile fracture. Here we can see the requisite cusping to each side, a central ridge extending into the Mediterranean and depressions extending into the corners of the fracture where we normally see secondary symmetrical fracturing. This is where the continental crust is thinning and on the verge of becoming ductile voids. Interestingly enough this large shallow, somewhat rectangular, ductile fracture is not unique.

Just a ways to the north on the Siberian coast exists one nearly identical in form, the Gakkel ductile fracture. Once again the fracture exhibits cusping to each side of the recess. A secondary fracture in the form of the Khatanga River extends into the western corner and a central fracture in the form of the Lena River extends down a central rise which mimics a central rise on the ductile fracture along the North African coast. The two fractures are almost identical in size as well, roughly 550 miles wide and over 200 miles deep.

The Gekkel ductile fracture is more significant than one might first realize. Its central fracture, the Lena River, extends out and aligns with the Gakkel Ridge, the northern extension of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge. The fracture’s cusps align with the Lomonosov Ridge and the Barents-Kara Ridge. This is one of the clearest examples of ductile fracturing being directly associated with a rip in the adjacently attached seafloor. I will probably have to have my jaw reattached if you are unable to see this one.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

1)...............I will admit that I am by no means a geologist,﻿........................

2)................but I do know that much like your statement regarding hotspots finding their way to thinner crust, ......................

3)...............This whole thing about using ‘paln’ views at some scale and projection argument is a bit ridiculous. See what you did? You forced me to create this horrible animated gif—it may have been rushed—to demonstrate that there is no variation in scaling. The fit is slightly looser than my image above, but that is due to the map overlay I used in ESRI. This is direct from Google Earth with no overlays.

In this animation, the image captured of the coastal pocket remains stationary. A series of images were captured at the identical scale—no zooming in or out—while the peninsula was rotated and moved back into the cavity. These images were then layered in sequence over the backdrop and finally reverse sequenced to show Kamchatka pulling out of the Asian coast. No distortion or change of scale occurred at any point in the making of this gif. Again, anyone can confirm this fit using the same process. If the fit looks all too perfect, blame Google.

4) Are we sure plate tectonics doesn’t allow for an intelligent planet?

1) No, nor are you a Scientist or you would not be relying on one piece of 'evidence' alone. I am trying to help you act like a Scientist, whilst keeping an open mind about your proposals.

2) I did not make this statement, another member did. Please read replies properly beofre you answer.

3) Please be less condescending about the words of others, especially those who are examining your proposals seriously.

The animation was interesting because.

1) How can you be sure Asia did not rotate the other way? Afterall the principal plate activity is rotation, not translation and the Asian Plate is not different.

2) I see that your animation contains some actual subduction at the hinge. Whoops!.

3) When you say that the Kamchatka peninsula moves (eg similar to your animation) What actually moves?
Just the surface sheet of paper?
How deep does it go?
This question is important because there are still active Kamchatka volcanoes.
As well as long extinct ones
So where does the magma come from now?
It is one thing to say a whole block of inert rock moves somewhere, quite another for the deep source of molten rock to move with it.

4) Once again you are invoking supernatural forces.

5) Fracture theory. If you are going to lecture me on this topic, please get your terminology ducks lined up. Fracture Mechanics is a particular branch of the subject concerned with the viability and possible propagation of discontinuities within a material especially under what are known as stress concentring geometries, even though the material is well within is theoretical strength limits. Failure analysis is the study of bodies to overwhelming exterior forces cause actual rupture. Failure analysis incorporates brittle, ductile and shear action. You may like to know for instance that the mode of failure of reinforced concrete is ductile if correctly reinforced but brittle if excessive reinforcement us incorporated. This is banned by codes because it leads to sudden failure without warning, whereas properly reinforced concrete will fail gradually.